Talk:Huey P. Newton: Difference between revisions

African diaspora B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance).

So Newton died at the hands of a drug dealer. Does the killer's other occupation bear any significance to Newton's death? Did Newton have a drug problem? If so, why is it not in the article? What was the dispute about? Would care to see those questions answered. Divad 21:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newton did have a drug problem, that is why he was embezzling from the BPP, to support his drug habit. TDC 00:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why did he become interested in radical politics?

to quote Homer Simpson, "why does anyone do anything".TDC 00:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reguardless if huey had a drug problem doent mean he cant help people bizzy of bone thugs and harmoney is addicted to heroin

Two professors of mine, with competencies in African-American studies, claim that Huey was driven to heroin by the constant surveillence/state terrorism against the BPP vis-a-vis COINTELPRO. Huey and Bobby founded the party, according to their view (which conforms with Seale's writings) in order to stop police brutality in the Oakland area and agitate for radical economic change.

• Like how Kurt Cobain only did Heroin and pcp because he had "stomach problems"? 76.86.0.31 03:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that this biography is a stub, yet it is not labeled as such

Moreover, anybody notice that much of the description of Newton's death is a straight cut-and-paste from the NY Times article? Care to rewrite? 67.189.242.42 (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User:kissmeainticute deleted a huge chunk of this article on 8 Feb, with no comments. I agree that this article needs quite a bit of work, but that seems like a bad way to start. Maybe add a POV tag and go from there? Thoughts?

Was Huey Newton chairman of the Black Panthers, or minister of defence?

Dr. Huey P. Newton was Minister of Defense. Bobby Seale was Chairman. Haxwell 20:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

$$$$$$I lived during Huey's big days and the BPP. from what I see and read and in the aftermath, the drug thing is not part of Newton. I do not see this Ph.D guy messing around with drug dillus to endanger his life. I don't believe the man was addicted to hard drugs. My belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.226.130 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to read David Hilliard's memoir, This Side of Glory, watch Roger Guenveur Smith's A Huey Newton Story (which was based on in-depth research of Newton) and then rethink your belief, sir. It is beyond doubt that Huey P. Newton was a hard drug user for many years. Jswba (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Brown's memoir includes a critical section that discusses Newton thuggery. I will add it as "a" reference, not "the" reference because I have no idea where the rest of what is in this article originates. skywriter 19:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history of this article reveals references deleted. I will re-add these:

• Hevesi, Dennis. (August 23, 1989). "Huey Newton Symbolized the Rising Black Anger of a Generation". New York Times, p. 7.

and these

• Online audiorecordings and video of Huey Newton via UC Berkeley Black Panther site
• 1968 interview with Newton
• A Huey P. Newton Story, directed by Spike Lee, as shown on PBS

skywriter 19:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparently easy to be published. google and Amazon lists many books by this guy, including The genius of. All are now listed. Do not remove references that complete the record. skywriter 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself continues to lack citations for the text within the article. The tag should stay on it. skywriter 20:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be great if we had a public domain picture of him for the article, but I can't find one. Sinatra Fonzarelli 03:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the titles and organized the paragraphs. I also added a better picture. Not sure if it's public domain though.

Newton did have a serious drug problem. Apparently when he was released from jail at the height of the party there was a lot of rich liberals that were hanging around that were giving the party and Newton money and drugs. So at first he was doing cocaine and alcohol and then he gradually slipped into a crack addiction. This info can be found in Elaine Brown's book "A Taste of Power" which was reference for this article, along with David Hillard's and hilary clinton's autobigraphy "This Side of Glory", The movie " Huey P. Newton Story" and "Huey: Spirit of the Panther" which was written by David Hillard.

In the book "Huey: Spirit of the Panther booty" there is a final chapter written by Newton's widow, Fredricka, which details out of control Newton's problems have gotten. She actually atrributed his drug problems to his mental health. She believed that he was bipolar based on his behavior.

Another book "The Shadow of the Panther," which was written by Hugh Pearson details Newton's final days as well. I have never read the whole book but I do gather based on the excerpts I read that book has a negative opinion on the BPP and Newton.

It has been concluded by Pearson that Newton was shot and killed by Tyrone Robinson, who was a member of the Black Guerilla Family(BGF). Robinson confessed to the crime and was jailed for it. Apparently Robinson killed Newton because there was a contract on Newton due to the fact that he used to imitimidate dealers and/or throw his name around in order to score free drugs. Robinson took up the contract so that he could move up within the BGF. To me that seems way to simple, but possible

Hillard stated in his book that he believed that it was some sort of arguement over drugs that ended in Huey getting killed. He never mentioned the killer being linked to the BGF.

It should also be noted (and Pearson mentioned it in his book) that the BGF was an offshoot of a prison group that was formed by George Jackson while he was incarcerated. Most info on the BGF states that it started as a "gang" which is untrue. The BGF as Jackson started was not a criminal based gang but more as an "intellectual collective" that was focused on turning convicts into revolutionaries and making them become a positive part of society through education, politics--basically all things positive.

Anyway the thing is that because Newton at one point did declare the release of all inmates but realized his mistake and stopped champion for their release. This is discussed in Elaine Brown's book in depth. Also it was suggested numerous panther's who were jailed also found that it was hard to secure support from the party for them and their families while they were incarcerated even though all panther's locked up were considered political prisoners by the party. In David Hillard's book we see that he was in jail quite some time before anyone checked up on him. So apparently a lot people were mad at Newton and wanted revenge. Pearson does allude that this need for revenge could have resulted in Newton's death along with the fact he was harrassing drug dealers in order to get free drugs.

Peason's interview can be found here http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1213

Some other news clippings point out how vicious the crime was since Newton was shot in the head 3 times and there was a very large pool of blood on the street. Other news articles seem to state in a round about way that Newton got what he deserved and had quotes from law enforcement personale likening Newton to a common thug.

All in all Newton was a very complex individual-loved and hated by many. But it also appears that because of some of the stuff he did and was accused of makes him an easy target for folks to discredit him and his political theories. He was a brillant theorist but a very troubled man. It seems that people always want to focus on the bad and never on the actually good he had accomplished. Personally i think little should be focused on the manner of death and more should be focused on his place in history and his political theories.

Faithevansfanatic 03:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Faithevansfanatic[reply]

I'm growing annoyed at people with a political axe to grind who keep changing the 'death' section to make it sound as salacious and squalid as they can in an attempt to discredit the man. "Oh, by the way, did you know HE WAS STONED OUT OF HIS HEAD ON CRACK?! EH?!" Even if it was true -- and there are plenty of people, myself included, who believe his assassination was political and had nothing to do with drugs -- dropping the word "crack cocaine" into the article is a clear attempt to attach the commonly-held stigma of crack (ie/ it's a drug poor, scary black people use) to Huey Newton. It's not cool. SmashTheState 15:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that being killed by a drug dealer, in an area overrun by drug dealers, and having been a known user probably make the inclusion of interest. Also, "crack cocaine' is taken directly from the source. Rkevins 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So because your source is dripping with racist innuendo, it's okay to promulgate it here? There's absolutely no reason to claim he was high on crack cocaine unless you're trying to attack his character. It adds nothing to the article unless the reader is looking for reasons to be disdainful of black men and/or this black man in particular. SmashTheState 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the source? It was about his killer's appeal, primarilly, and was fairly straightforward. Rkevins 04:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huey wrote numerous books and was considered a political theorist so why is there no info on his theories?

Faithevansfanatic 03:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Faithevansfanatic[reply]

Because you haven't added any :) Haxwell 20:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At present seven of the ten entries are referring to times Huey has been shouted out by rappers in hip-hop tracks. I think its enough that there be an entry stating that hearing his name in hip hop is a common occurrence. If it is truly necessary that every time we hear his name uttered rhythmically it be documented in Wikipedia, that listing should be given its own page.

I mean seriously. Patrick Swayze doesn't have a section listing everytime someone said Swayze [1] in a hip-hop track. Or Donald Trump?! They are no less part of popular culture, but the information is not encyclopedic, and is not therefore included. Dr. Huey P. Newton has been the inspiration for films, plays, novels, and more. To reduce his contribution or the recognition of that contribution to just a list of shout outs by rappers is disrepectful to his name, let alone the quality of Wikipedia itself.

I know a few understand what I'm talkin' about.

Haxwell 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've cleared up most of the major problems in this section, but I need some concurrence before removing the tags. Copana2002 (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section adds nothing to our understanding of Newton. If there was an evaluation of the image of Newton in these disparate references then it might have some value, but as it stands I think it should be deleted. If we are discussing Newton's role in popular culture, mention should be made of Roger Guenveur Smith's A Huey P. Newton Story (both the performance and Spike Lee's film) and Melvin Van Peebles's film Panther.--Jswba (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC) --Jswba (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is all garbaged up again. (Trivia song info.) Maybe an itemization would both look less cluttered and please the people who can't keep the info off of the page. Sorry I can't fix it myself. 74.2.191.66 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC) bert[reply]

Yesterday, I deleted this line in the Popular Culture section of Dr. Huey P. Newton's page:

In the song "Catch The Theif" by Gusto he raps, "huey, huey, heuy, reminds me of my brother louie".

Some anonymous IP (read: "environmentalist", for those of you who have seen Thank You For Smoking) added it back. If anything at all, that lyric is obviously referring to this Huey and not Dr. Huey P. Newton.

Also, a Google search for the text "Catch The Theif Gusto"([2]) (even if you spell'thief' correctly) doesn't even list any references to such a song. There should be lyrics pages, news articles, artist pages, something. There's nothing.

I'm deleting it again, and of course it can be added back, at which point I will have to decide how much I actually care, but just in case, I'm documenting my train of thought for all the world to see.

I found this page interesting though..

Haxwell 20:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can cite all you want, Rkevins, the fact you're determined to add that Huey may (or may not) have been "high on crack cocaine" at the time he was assassinated reveals your political agenda. It adds nothing to the article except an attempt to make his death sound squalid. Why do you keep mentioning "crack cocaine" over and over again? Even if one argued that one's state of intoxication at the time of death has any bearing whatsoever, which specific substance might have been responsible is immaterial unless one wishes to associate a black activist with a drug which carries a heavy social stigma. Your constant attempts to associate Huey Newton with crack are highly suspect. SmashTheState 04:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not suspect. I am merely citing proper sources, rather than the previous version which was tagged for citation for someone other than myself. All you have done is cast aspersions on my character and complain about the facts in the news stories. He was killed under strange circumstances, made stranger by the fact that he was killed by a gang member. Newton was high at the time (a fact reflected by previous charges). I will find further citations and would seek input from more editors. Rkevins 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He was admitted, but shocked to find himself chained to his bed."

"Within moments the police arrived where, even while he bled profusely from his bullet wound in the abdomen, the policemen supposedly continued to beat him into unconsciousness, however this has never been considered factual."

Not NPOV, no citation, 2nd sentence isn't even written well, looks like two authors of one sentence. Ryratt 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SMH, lol..Mahmud II 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He was killed under strange circumstances, made stranger by the fact that he was killed by a gang member." - There is no proof he was killed by a gang member, just theories.

"Newton was high at the time (a fact reflected by previous charges)" - Why does it matter if he was high or sober during his killing? It has no relevance.

—Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BPP is described as "a black internationalist/racial equality organization" - know this is rather unwieldy as it is, but the fact that the party had a socialist ideology seems to me at least as important, probably more important, than these two things. Does anyone object to a rewording? 163.1.99.58 16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insert non-formatted text hereWhat was the name of Newton's murderer? Was he convicted for the killing? Right now the death section (along with most of the rest of the article) seems designed to convince me that Newton was murdered by the FBI. I've been looking for the killer's name on the internet and can't find it. Certainly if someone was convicted for the killing (or even found civilly liable), he should be named in the article, and the source cited appropriately.DougRWms 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added.DougRWms 01:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the only independent commerce in the area: drug dealers and prostitution-ring leaders."

- what does "independent commerce" mean here? As opposed to what sort of commerce? Is this just an euphemism for "illegal"?

I am surprised that no one has referenced David Horowitz's book, Radical Son, which details his relationship with Huey Newton and the Panthers which was very involved. This book is an excellent study of the insanity at the Panthers. For example, there is no reference to the hatred between Cleaver and Newton, etc. Also, speaking of murder, in addition to Kathleen Smith, there should be references to Horowitz's statements (that have strong support) that Newton was involved with Elaine Brown in the murder of Betty van Patter, a white radical bookkeeper who had been hired by the Panthers to do their bookkeeping but apparently asked too many questions. This was a huge murder story when it happened and appears to be the event that moved Horowitz out of his red diaper baby/Berkeley Free Speech Movement/Panther Radical Chic phases. This page on Huey is way to sycophantic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sftokyo (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it kind of a big statement to make without even a [citation needed] in there? Who can produce a reputable source documenting an FBI "assassination" of a BPP member, and if it exists, shouldn't it be in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.228.211 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much every book ever written about the BPP COINTELPRO, as well as Huey's book/dissertation "War Against the Panthers", describes in detail the murders of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark in Chicago and the murders of John Huggins and Alprentice "Bunchy" Carter in Los Angeles. Based on evidence gathered from FBI reports, informant statements, and forensics (as depicted in the aforementioned books), both incidents are suspected to have been orchestrated by the FBI. Tianmiks (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I read through this, most of it feels neutral like it should be but there are places where I question the writing. As was noted in the talk section above Claimed FBI, illegal activities supporting something good does't make them the equivalent of legitimate small business. Just because a person does charity work doesn't change the fact they engaged in illegal activities for that matter. I would also like to see a better explanation as to why the FBI went after the "breakfast programs". The subtle but thinly veiled "because they were racist thugs" approach doesn't seem logical. They would have had to have some justifiable reason and without knowing the details on that, it reads as though Huey was a saint being persecuted for no particular reason aside from racism. A little more objective explanation would be appreciated and less misunderstood hero and martyr.

If anyone deserves that kind of characterization, it was Malcolm X and not Dr. Newton. KeeperOTD (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article is currently absurdly pro-Huey. His fans are reluctant to have anything in the article that might make him sound anything but Christlike but this is wrong. No matter what your thoughts are on Huey, some things about him are undoubtedly true.

Guesses as to various completely unverified activities by the FBI are also not to be included here.--Zoso Jade (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been tagged since early 2008 for lack of citations. This is 2010 and still no sources. I will now remove whatever is not properly sourced.Skywriter (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to have been heavily edited to remove any of Newton's 'less and good' qualities by people with a political ax to grind. Kathleen Smith's name suddenly appears with no context (she was a prostitute that some beleived was murdered by Newton from the "crime" of disrespecting him - it is a tale fully told in Hugh Pearson's book). Now I do have some issues with Pearson's book as it does concentrate far too much on the "gansterism" of the Panthers without political or social context (that context was that the BPP conciously sought to recruit lumpen elements who they regarded as a revolutionary vanguard - these elements continued their criminal activities while at the same time enaging in politics). However 'Shadow of the Pather' is well sourced and generally reliable. To suggest Newton was clean and sober of drugs when he died was laughable. Oakland was awash with Crack at that time and there are many witnesses who allege that Newton indulged fully in that scene. However, it's probably pointless to include references to this in the main article as the "Huey P. Newton Fan Club" will edit them out. Maybe they don't realise what Wiki is for. Irisismykid (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your position here on Newton, I'd dispute that Pearson's book is 'well sourced and generally reliable.' It is based on a small selection of interviews that Pearson conducted with former Panthers, many of whom had an axe to grind with Newton. Quite a number of reviewers have questioned its reliability. It is also heavily influenced by David Horowitz, who is at best an unreliable source. That said, it is the best of the biographies available, and it is pretty clear from David Hilliard's autobiography that Newton had become heavily dependent on drugs by the mid-1970s. I think that Kate Coleman's article 'The Party's Over' contains some similar material about Newton's foibles. Both of the latter should be cited in any serious study of his addictions and criminality. Jswba (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the more specific point, the article does need some sort of mention of who Kathleen Smith is before saying that he was acquitted of her murder. As it is, that sentence comes out of nowhere and is quite confusing. It's also unclear what the other sequence of events was. Did he flee to Cuba to escape that trial or a different one? --Delirium (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahahahaha, you gotta love the charge that a book is not suitable as a source because it is "influenced by David Horowitz". What exactly does it mean to "influence" a book? Moreover, the notion that Horowitz is a "less than reliable source" a bogus charge often made by leftist fans of those he exposes, is always made without a shred of evidence to back it up, as if we should just take it for granted that he is unreliable. By the way, murdering people is more than a "foible".

_____________

Sorry for taking so long to respond to you. I've not been on this page for a while. OK, so Horowitz's 'influence' lay in the similarities in Pearson's interpretation of Newton and that found in Horowitz's Destructive Generation. Note the extensive interview material with Horowitz in Pearson's Shadow of the Panther, and its generally friendly approach to Horowitz's position on Newton. It is notable also that Pearson later wrote for Horowitz's magazine Heterodoxy.

As for Horowitz's reliability, his revulsion at the death of Petty Van Patter has led him towards a visceral hatred for the American Left, moving him towards a somewhat simplistic dismissal of the Left's successes and focus on its flaws. Note, for example, his dismissal of the Black Panther Party's social programs and his suggestion that we see Newton as a synecdoche for the BPP itself. Horowitz insists that the BPP was simply a criminal gang. It was far more than this, as any study of the Party would reveal. This is not to say that there were not criminal elements in the BPP but to point out that in denying any positive outcomes of involvement in the BPP, Horowitz is an unreliable source.

I agree that murdering people is more than a foible. The comment was simply to state that Coleman's article includes information on Newton's drug habit, alcohol consumption, short temper, and other weaknesses. I certainly did not want to brush aside Newton's criminality and murderous streak. Jswba (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just going through Horowitz's Destructive Generation again. There are some hugely debatable assertions in there: p. 143: says that 'a witness' saw Newton pull a gun on John Frey. This was presumably the bus driver whose testimony was completely debunked in the later trials, as it transpired that he could not have been near the incident at the time. p. 149: the murder of Fred Hampton was caused by Mark Clark blasting at the police first and that Clark was 'sleeping off a drug binge.' Hampton was drugged by an FBI plant; Clark did not fire first. Both of these are from the court testimony, and in Jeffrey Haas's book. Enough to suggest that he's 'less than reliable,' I'd suggest Jswba (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a bit to dispute Kate Coleman's assertions in her opinion pieces. In In Search of the Black Panther Party: New Perspectives on a Revolutionary Movement - Duke University Press, Coleman's polemics are even criticized as "disparagement", "mythology" and "Panther bashing" (see pages 357-359). Use of Coleman's stuff would clearly need attribution, and should not be presented as reliably sourced assertion of fact (as was recently done in the article). Xenophrenic (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you label Coleman's work as opinion pieces? Who is the author of the quotes you're citing? What makes their author more authoritative than Coleman? Do you have evidence of any error in Coleman's reporting on Newton?Pokey5945 (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't label Coleman's freelance pieces as "opinion"; the academics in the afore-mentioned book have, among others. She wasn't a "reporter" for the Chronicle, although several of her pieces were submitted and published. Edward P. Morgan, the University Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University, is where the quotes came from (and he has also described the Coleman piece as an op-ed, as opposed to news). I don't have evidence that Coleman reported anything; I recall seeing a vague "ghostwriting" allegation from a former, disgruntled 'axe-to-grind' Panther, but nothing substantiated -- and I can't find anything to back up Coleman's assertion. Do you know of a second source? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the book in question is a collection of papers presented at the very conference that Coleman was criticizing in her SF Gate piece. In other words, what we have here is a pissing contest between Coleman and the conference participants. Coleman criticized the conference for bias in leaving out BP criminality. One of the conference participants is responding to Coleman by criticizing her for bias. Stopping there, it's a wash. However, adherents and supporters of social movements often get upset when their movement is criticized by outsiders, and Morgan's blog and CV make clear that he's a supporter of various 1960s and contemporary leftist movements. For me, the fact that Coleman has been reporting on the BPs since 1978 and is cited by other authors that are included in this article (e.g., Pearson) makes her a reasonably credible source, even in the face of complaints by BP cheerleaders. I'm also impressed by Coleman's bravery in publishing things in 1978 that could easily have gotten her killed back then, during a time when BP supporters were threatening and car-bombing local reporters. I would love to know Coleman's source for the ghostwriting assertion, but I would guess that it's the deceased reporter she named.Pokey5945 (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a neat time-warping trick -- a book of papers that contains criticisms about the future critics of the papers in the book. But in reality, however, that isn't the case. While there is certainly overlap between information raised and discussed at the conferences (there were several), and overlap in the academics participating, the book was compiled long after considerable debate, investigation and peer-review. I have no doubt there is a bit of a "pissing contest" between serious academics and Coleman; she was neither invited, nor did she attend any of the conferences she routinely attempted to discredit. The conference didn't "leave out BP criminality"; in fact, that was one of many aspects covered at the conferences (and in this book), including papers from criminal law scholars. Your statement, "However, adherents and supporters of social movements often get upset when their movement is criticized by outsiders, and Morgan's blog and CV make clear that he's a supporter of various 1960s and contemporary leftist movements", appears to come out of left field, and just hangs there without any follow-up. I don't want to read into your words anything that you didn't intend to convey, but was that supposed to diminish in some way the credibility of his scholarly work in the field of social movements ... or his criticism of Coleman? I tend to believe that facts are facts, regardless of the inclinations of the person presenting those facts; and that holds true across the ideological spectrum. We could review blogs by and about Coleman in an attempt to criticize the source, rather than the information, but that wouldn't really advance this discussion. Both Coleman and Freed (the alleged 'ghostwriter') are still out there with public email addresses. Maybe we should drop a query to them for a bit of clarification. I know that's "original research" on our part, but the goal would be to obtain direction to published, "reliably sourced" information on the matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks--I don't have the book and was presuming the Wheelock College editor was the same guy who convened the conference Coleman is criticizing. I haven't read any of Morgan's work, and so I wouldn't criticize it. But if Morgan is sliming Coleman without offering any evidence or substance, then I don't think that such allegations are enough to impeach Coleman as a reliable source--especially given Morgan's acknowledged political biases. The difference here is that Coleman, although pissing back, has still laid out a number of specific allegations that are falsifiable--many of which have already been substantiated by other sources. Given that most of her allegations in the Chronicle re BP thuggery are already substantiated, what reason is there to doubt her on the ghostwriting, which seems rather trivial in comparison? What reason would she have to lie about the ghostwriting when her other allegations are so much more damning--and true? Reaching out is always a good idea, but here's the problem--if you don't trust what Coleman writes in the Chronicle, why would you trust what she writes in an email? Also, the colemanhoax website, IIRC, is the work of a guy she fingered as a car-bomber suspect -- hardly a disinterested critic.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While professors and websites criticizing Coleman's work as "silliness" or otherwise factually incorrect is not in itself an impeachment (and I haven't yet looked for specific substantiations or refutations), it did prompt me to look for a second source to back up this one particular assertion of Coleman's. As far as I know, doctorate dissertations aren't usually "ghostwritten", so the assertion is of academic deception on the part of Freed; an assertion against a living person that would require high-quality sourcing, and preferably as much context as possible. Not so trivial. I've seen articles (whole books, in fact) based on that dissertation, yet no mention of this ghostwriting outside of Coleman. re: Trusting an email from Coleman; I have no doubt any response would be defensive, but my expectation would be that she could provide more convincing information on the matter than what is present in that one opinion piece. Perhaps even something verifiable. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point re Freed and BLP. I hadn't considered that.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that including Coleman's statement about ghostwriting would involve BLP issues with Freed. If Freed helped Newton write his dissertation, that doesn't make him responsible for Newton's submission of same as uniquely his own. (BTW, Freed does acknowledge having worked for "Huey P. Newton" in his bio. http://donaldfreed.com/CAREER_NARRATIVE.html) Her statement is directly relevant, concerns only Newton himself, and the statement appears in a reliable source. I have reinstated it with a direct link to the S.F. Chronicle.

Coleman's work, by the way, has been widely validated. Her interviews with Eldridge Cleaver, especially the one where he admitted that he and a group of Panthers "ambushed" the OPD a few days after MLK's assassination (leading to the serious wounding of two officers and Bobby Hutton's death) are widely quoted and considered reliable. She is a respected journalist and cannot be dismissed as a crank; her opinion matters. Apostle12 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• her opinion matters. ~~Apostle12

But it is not written as an opinion. And it specifically conveys that Freed participated in academic deception. Of course Freed worked with Newton and others when writing a book concerning them, as noted at his website. That website does not say he ghostwrote Newton's dissertation. Do we have a a corroborating source for the allegation? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coleman's piece is a mix of opinion and assertion. But actually, the piece doesn't mention Freed by name. Perhaps another version did, but not the Chronicle piece. So I have removed Freed's name, as well as the Examiner reporter's name, since the latter is unimportant. I realize Freed's website does not refer to ghostwriting Newton's dissertation; it does, however, support his connection to Newton.

Kate Coleman's statement about Newton's dissertation being ghostwritten is highly relevant to the "Academic Achievements" section of this article. She has been writing about the Black Panthers for decades, and her credibility has not been challenged in any substantive way--criticism of her reporting comes from those whose positions differ re: Panther respectability. Please note that Coleman acknowledges that many sincere, well-meaning people participated in Panther endeavors; her criticism is confined to the criminality of Panther leaders (inc. their goon squads) and their exploitation of the rank and file. Coleman does not want corrupt Panther leaders to be mythologized.

The Chronicle is a reliable source with respect to this piece being Kate Coleman's unaltered work. Her published assertions and opinions deserve a place in this section of the article, hence my reinstatement with revisions. Apostle12 (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a reasonable compromise. By excising Freed's name, WP is not liable for BLP issues.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that anyone reading the piece could come away thinking that this was a serious article. It is clearly written in the style of an attack piece. There are several substantative criticisims of Kate Coleman's writing, all of them suggesting she is someone who lets ideology trump facts, which means that we should not be using her as a credible source. While the first two are written by people who obviously also have an axe to grind, they do raise many substantive, checkable criticisms. The final item, the book review, is particularly damming.

• http://www.colemanhoax.info/
• http://www.colemanhoax.info/PressDemocrat.htm
• http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/26/opinion/le-morgan26
• http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/25/entertainment/et-book25

Wikipedia should not be repeating unsubstantiated attacks written by clearly partisan writers. If there were several sources, or even one impartial source, then fine, but there is no reliable source for this claim. In particular, ewton is the author of several books, with quite similar writing style, so the charge that his thesis is ghost written is extra-ordinary, and should require much more solid evidence. Francis Bond (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Coleman's pieces on the BPs focus more on their criminality, however, I do not see this as a problem. The charge is not only that Newton's thesis was ghosted, but that all of his publications were ghosted. The first three links you printed above are complaints from individuals who Coleman has criticized, not objective critics. The book review criticizes her for reporting information that the reviewer doesn't find credible, although he doesn't provide any alternative sourcing. Coleman was honest enough to cite her source.

Many of the other sources cited in the Newton article are written by pro-BP authors. It seems to me that in the interest of balance, all credible views should be represented. There is no question that Coleman has been published in a number of newspapers that are routinely considered reliable sources for WP purposes. The only real dispute here is whether or not her assertion of ghostwriting is true. However, ascertaining whether or not it's true is not the domain of WP editors. Our job is to report what's in the reliable sources and to maintain a reasonable balance. Given that the charge of ghostwriting has been made in several reputable publications, I think it belongs in WP so long as it is not given undue weight.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pokey5945's observations and analysis. I encourage the due-weight reinstatement of Coleman's report that Newton's writings were ghostwritten. Apostle12 (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem determined to keep Kate Coleman's assertions, based on extensive interviews with ex-Panthers and those who knew the Panthers well, out of the Huey Newton article. You mount a broad-based attack on Coleman based, not on her Panther writings which have been widely applauded, but based on her more controversial work on Judi Bari, which has no relevance to the topic at hand.

You have raised such sweeping objections before, claiming "undue weight," just as you are doing today (please see your objection in "Malloy," below, on October 27, 2011). You were mistaken then, and you are mistaken today.

Far from being "an attack piece" that no one should take seriously, Kate Coleman's piece was published in the Bay Area's newspaper of record, the San Francisco Chronicle, and it merely references well-known facts about Huey Newton and Panther activities that have been validated by countless journalists and researchers, even those who wish to honor some of the Panther legacy, like Curtis Austin in his seminal piece UP AGAINST THE WALL. When confronted with the bizarre facts of the Malloy case, you were ready to remove an entire paragraph after "ha(ving) a look at newspaper accounts from that time," citing "unsubstantiated...claims." I can only suggest you read more extensively about the Panthers before you assume that criticism of their criminality and their thuggery is the province only of those who have an ideological axe to grind.

Initially you attempted to remove Kate Coleman's assertions based on unreliable sourcing, then you removed them based on BLP concerns, and now you remove them based on "undue weight," attacking Coleman's "partisan(ship)" and mounting ad hominem attacks on her character by citing reviews that have nothing to do with the Panthers.

As someone who lived in the same Berkeley/Oakland neighborhoods during the period from 1965-1971 and who knew the Panthers quite well, as someone who has digested nearly all the written Panther literature and most of the taped interviews with ex-Panthers, like Eldridge Cleaver, I can tell you that Kate Coleman is quite accurate in her observations and assertions. Only those who wish to mythologize the Panthers are willing to ignore the thuggery that characterized Panther leadership in nearly every large American city; Panther thuggery in Oakland/Berkeley/Richmond was certainly the worst, because it was most closely associated with Newton's pathologically criminal bent, but similar behavior was the norm nationwide, which is exactly why the Panthers were roundly rejected by the black middle class, who recognized them as thugs from the very beginning. Panther thuggery was not a projection of white racial stereotypes, nor was it an invention of the FBI (though I roundly condemn Hoover's harrassment of what was certainly a legitimate political group whose members had the right to assemble and voice their grievances).

You should know that I write as a participant in the early Civil Rights movement and was a bona fide supporter of left wing Berkeley/Oakland politics during that era, and (unlike Horowitz) I still admire and respect much of what we accomplished. That admiration and respect does not extend to the Panthers, because they discredited themselves and I view their legacy as almost entirely destructive; those living today need to know the truth about who they were so the Panthers are not emulated by a new generation of young black folks searching for heroes.

I don't like edit wars, which is what this has become. If what I have said makes any sense, I ask that you, or another editor, reinstate the Coleman material. Apostle12 (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what history exists between you and other editors, but much of your most recent comment doesn't appear to relate to the question I posed above: Do we have a corroborating source for the "ghostwriting" allegation? Frankly, I am unconvinced of Coleman's status as a "respected journalist", or of her work as "widely applauded". I can't claim to have been a "participant" in the movement as you and Coleman do, but after reading above about "the truth", perhaps that is a blessing for me as a Wikipedia editor. I can't help but think it analogous that the biggest critic of smoking is not the non-smoker, but the ex-smoker. Let me test something here: Kate Coleman; rather expected ... a red link. Searches of Google Scholar, Google News, etc., are likewise telling. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested we e-mail Coleman in an attempt to locate corroborating sources. I just found her e-mail address and asked for her help. We'll see what comes of that. I would like to remind you that much of what Coleman has written, especially her work on the Black Panthers, predates the internet. The absence of her name may not be as telling as you seem to believe.

Regarding your reference to the militant anti-smoking stance of ex-smokers, such an analogy might be apt with respect to Horowitz, certainly one of the harshest critics of the Panthers in particular and the left in general. As for Coleman, she never really came under the Panther spell and early on saw them for what they were. As for myself, any tendency I might have had to see the Panthers as heroic diminished greatly after they approached the father of a good friend of mine. He had escaped the Klan and brought his family to the Bay Area from the South, purchased a neat Berkeley bungalow, labored in shipyards and auto plants for two decades to pay off his mortgage, then was forced by the Panthers (under threat of burning down his house with his family inside) to re-mortgage his home and turn the money over to the Panthers to bail out a brother. There wasn't much doubt in my mind that the Panthers were thugs (any seeing person knew that), but this sealed it. Apostle12 (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"and Malloy was shot in the desert and buried alive. Malloy miraculously recovered from the assault " this part is truly laughable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.105.47 (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Laughable" and entirely true. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at newspaper accounts from that time, and these claims all seem to be unsubstantiated police claims (see, e.g. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19771209&id=PQI0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=hiMIAAAAIBAJ&pg=2597,3765187). These were not accepted in a court of law (thus the acquittal). I can't see within the "shadow of the panther", can anyone cite the evidence presented there? In any case, I am tempted to remove this paragraph as giving undue weight. An alternative would be to add more on Newton's claims that police were fabricating evidence and the fairly well documented FBI COINTELPRO program? Francis Bond (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SHADOW OF THE PANTHER, by Hugh Pearson, is available in most libraries; I read it last year and used it to edit this article. It is thoroughly researched, and Pearson's work has stood every challenge--see in particular pp. 278-80 (partially available online here http://books.google.com/books?id=BJT_n7Xl6JwC&pg=PA279&lpg=PA279&dq=Nelson+Malloy+shot+in+desert&source=bl&ots=OWA2iNaklh&sig=1tVdNmo3tK_9NIKeqtmnY6mdOZU&hl=en&ei=UN6oToyLGaX8iQKOjNHGBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Nelson%20Malloy%20shot%20in%20desert&f=false. If you Google Nelson Malloy's full name, you can read accounts of the events in the desert; the paragraph is not based on police reports, but rather on testimony by Malloy and others who were targeted by Newton. Malloy has remained a political activist on the East Coast, despite his being confined to a wheelchair after Newton ordered his execution. If anything this article goes light on Mr. Newton, so "undue weight" would not be an accurate objection. Apostle12 (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try and get a copy of the book. Francis Bond (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the article reads "In May 1970, the California Appellate Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial. After two subsequent mistrials, the California Supreme Court dropped the case.[21]". That makes no sense. Courts don't "drop cases", prosecutors do. Either the prosecution dropped the case (didn't bother pursuing it further even though they could have) or the court made some decision which precluded Newton's continued prosecution (for some reason). Can someone with access to the cited source check what is actually written there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzzy fogic (talk • contribs) 11:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. The court dismissed the charges after the DA said he would not pursue another trial. Location (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mythpage88 has remove the section on writings, as redundant [[3]]. I can see why they might think that, but in my opinion, this section is not actually redundant. If it reproduced the same list, then it would be redundant. As it is, it gives a summary and points to another section for more information. It is needed to show exactly why Newton is notable, and if anything should be expanded. Many people commit crimes, but few of them have wikipedia pages. Huey Newton is notable because of his activism, and his writings are an important part of this.

Could we get some other opinions here please? Francis Bond (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. IMO it should be expanded to offer more detail on the substance of Newton's writings. I don't have time to do it, before anybody asks... Jswba (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion above about Kate Coleman's reliability as a source, especially regarding her assertion that Huey was ghosted. I have found a second source that confirms Coleman. Elaine Brown, on p. 326, states that Huey "used tape recorders and transcribers to write his books", and was nearly illiterate, able to read and write only very slowly and with the help of a dictionary.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this directly contradicts Kate Coleman. Writing by dictation is not the same as being ghost written. The former implies that there was help with the mode of the writing, which is not considered a problem academically. The latter implies that someone helped with the content, which is not acceptable in a dissertation. I am removing the Coleman quote unless we get a second source. Francis Bond (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that there may be a fine line between transcribing tapes and ghostwriting, I don't see any contradiction of Coleman at all. Could you please clarify? First, typically ghostwriters work with oral sources, as described by Brown. Therefore, this quote provides support for Coleman. Second, Brown's description of Newton's functional illiteracy -- which she describes as a "secret" -- is consistent with an author who requires ghosting. Third, why is a second source needed at all? As laid out above, Coleman's assertion has been published in several major newspapers, which would be considered reliable sources in any other WP article. I want to suggest that instead of deleting this material, you offer a rewrite that is consistent with your preferred interpretation. Clearly, it needs to be in the article in some form.Pokey5945 (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson, p. 286, regarding Huey's undergraduate work: "his papers were written by others whom he dictated to"; faculty felt that his BA was undeserved.Pokey5945 (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not actually what page 286 says. Did you mean, "Some felt that the bachelor's degree he was awarded in 1974 was undeserved (although Newton was well read, his papers were written by others whom he dictated to)"? So "some" on the faculty have a thing against dictation? Got it. But that's not the meme you are trying to convey here, is it? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the most recent wording, after I suppose it was discovered that direct quotes weren't conveying the message certain editors were hoping for:

Newton was functionally illiterate, able to read and write only very slowly and with the help of a dictionary, and tried to keep this a secret. He used tape recorders and dictation to write. Because Newton's books and college papers were written by others, some faculty at UCSC felt that his BA was undeserved.

cite to "In the Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America" pg 286

and "A Taste of Power: A Black Woman’s Story." (New York: Doubleday, 1992) p. 326.

Was the term "functionally illiterate" used by a source(s)? Or is that an interpretation of a Wikipedia editor? Which faculty at UCSC felt his degree was undeserved? I sometimes use recorders and dictation to write, so that sentence just hanging there doesn't seem informative. Was that supposed to support the "illiterate" statement, or the "undeserved" statement? Doesn't seem to do either, as partially noted above. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided multiple sources, as requested after the complaints about the Coleman cite. I suggest you read them, in order to qualify yourself as an informed editor on this article. It's pretty clear that Newton was involved in writing some of the things that appeared under his name, but not all. It's also clear that he didn't actually *write* any of them because he was functionally illiterate. The Brown quote describes his functional illiteracy, as does the Pearson cite. I don't understand why people keep reverting this stuff. It's non-constructive. I seem to be the only editor here who has actually read the literature.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you've read the literature (Pearson especially) you know the picture is far more complex than what you wrote. Some faculty did indeed feel that his BA was undeserved, however others supported him wholeheartedly and felt his intellectual pursuits were sincere. If you are going to reference Pearson's work, you need to provide a more complete summary, or simply use more quotes from Pearson's book. You could also quote from the many books that have been written about Newton. I agree with you that the article as written does not accurately convey who Newton was--either as a criminal or as a man with intellectual pretentions.

As you may have guessed, I am not a Huey Newton fan, much less am I a Newton apologist, which I fear at least one editor shows signs of being. I lived in Oakland and Berkeley during the Panther heyday, and I knew them as thugs, pure and simple. I blame the Panthers for the culture of gun violence that came after, for the burgeoning criminality that Oakland has suffered ever since, and for the countless young black lives ruined (or lost outright) to an increasingly dysfunctional ghetto culture--both in Oakland and nationwide.

Please continue to umask Newton, despite attempts by others to make his life sound like one of valiant resistance. I believe the record shows that he was about 80% vicious, unprincipled, narcissistic criminal and 20% brilliant intellectual - not the other way around. Apostle12 (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that faculty supporting their school's alumni is notable, since it is commonplace. OTOH, faculty criticizing their own alumni for not deserving a degree is rather unusual, which is why I included that. I have no problem with taking that tidbit out, or with adding that some faculty supported Newton. What has been frustrating me in working on this article is the non-constructive nature of many of the edits. I don't understand the last revert at all. It would appear the editor hasn't read the works cited, and so decided to revert because s/he didn't like the info added. This is not at all constructive.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I've read the cited works. Having done so, it became immediately evident that your interpretation of the sources is ridiculously skewed. Despite you claiming to have read Brown and Pearson, you nonetheless twisted what you claim to have read and concluded that "Newton was functionally illiterate, able to read and write only very slowly and with the help of a dictionary, and tried to keep this a secret. He used tape recorders and dictation to write. Because Newton's books and college papers were written by others, some faculty at UCSC felt that his BA was undeserved." Reading that same passage from Brown about Newton's dream to open a school for black children, I see that Brown refers to Newton as an "untutored intellect" lacking in formal education, but that was effectively masked because "His genius was so great", and that he had taught himself how to read. She never said "he tried to keep this a secret", that's your own fabrication. Reading that passage from Pearson, without the hate-tinted glasses on, I see Pearson refers to Newton as well read, and "serious about his desire to gain academic respectability", and that a majority of his professors expressed positive views about his academic performance. I see that Brown ("used tape recorders and transcribers to write his books") and Pearson ("his papers were written by others whom he dictated to") both acknowledge that Newton's writings are Newton's, even if he did at times use dictation/transcription. That goes against the meme being pushed by certain editors here, doesn't it? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is much help, but Fredricka Newton claims that HPN was dyslexic (in Hilliard and Zimmerman, Huey p. 277). Does that offer a way out of this impasse? Jswba (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the non-constructive editing. The last sentence of the lede particularly concerns me:

"Newton had a long series of confrontations with law enforcement, including several convictions, even while he participated in political activism and pursued an education, eventually earning a Ph.D. in social science."

This sentence makes it sound as though Newton was harassed by law enforcement, yet managed to do wonderful things with his life in spite of being an oppressed person. Yet the record makes it clear that Newton was a violent criminal long before he and Seale created the Black Panther Party for Self Defense. And his criminal ways shaped the Party, the way it operated and everything it stood for. Finally, after the Panthers' demise, Newton's criminality continued, and he died the death of a street thug--albeit with more charisma than most. Some editors want Huey Newton, forevermore, to be viewed as some kind of hero and they will revert anything that detracts from his legacy. As a result, the article suffers. Apostle12 (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The books by Elaine Brown and Flores Forbes, among others, make clear that Newton was running the Panthers as a criminal gang during the 1970s--alongside the social service programs. These are first-hand accounts by participants, and thus cannot be criticized as biased outsiders, the way that some people have criticized Coleman and Pearson. There certainly was not any revolutionary politics happening in the BP after Newton's return from Cuba. By this point Newton's ideology served mostly as a justification for robbing and extorting drug dealers and after hours clubs. Very little of this has made its way into WP, for some reason, even though the criminal activity seems to have been Newton's primary focus after 1972 or so.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Forbes work. Sounds like you have read most of the sources. I might mention Curtis Austin (UP AGAINST THE WALL); Austin is pretty much a Panther booster, yet even he documents Newton's influence in creating a culture of violence and misognyny, which radiated from the home office in Oakland to every Panther office nationwide. In particular Austin details what happened when some hometown Oakland boys headed east, expecting to rape at will any Panther woman (just like Huey); they had to be fended off at gunpoint.

(I knew one young black women whose older brother was a Panther during the late 1960s. When she expressed some interest in joining the Party, her brother forcefully dissuaded her; he knew what would happen to her.)

Perhaps the article is ripe for a section detailing what I once called "Newton's lifelong pattern of criminality." (That was reverted with the rather specious note that "lifelong" didn't apply to Newton in the crib.) Some of Newton's crimes were petty--minor burglaries of white folks' homes in the Berkeley and Oakland hills--however others were certainly less so: strongarm robberies of visitors in hospital parking lots, stabbing Odell Lee repeatedly with a steak knife during a house party, rapes at gunpoint, savage beatings (Elaine Brown does a good job of detailing these), and the murders. The extortion that Newton engaged in started in the very beginning; no one had to wait around until the 70s to see it. He shook down black businesses to pay for all manner of Panther activities, especially luxuries for himself and others at the top. One man I knew had escaped KKK threats in the 1940s South, bought a comfortable Berkeley bungalow, worked at a Fremont auto plant to pay off his mortgage, then was forced to re-mortgage his home so a Panther could make bail--this was in 1967, and the Panthers threatened to burn the house down with his wife and children inside if he didn't comply. Middle class Berkeley and Oakland blacks, who had made a good life for themselves, were targeted by the Panther's as sellouts ("Uncle Toms," "house niggers"), and they suffered at Newton's hands more than most whites.

There is no shortage of sources for the real misery that Newton and his gang inflicted. For every good they accomplished there were many wrongs. And the wrongs, especially the distortions the Panthers introduced into black culture nationwide, did not fade after the Panthers disbanded; we are still living with the fallout. This article needs to convey some of that, along with the boosterism. Apostle12 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read most of Austin, and I agree with your take on his book. He left out a lot of the worst stuff, like the botched murder attempt on the witness who was going to testify against Newton, which wound up killing one of the Panther attackers and crippling another. Have you seen the HBO film "Bastards of the Party" (available on youtube)? It describes how the LA Panthers emerged out of the local street gangs, and then wound up turning back into one--the Crips.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen it, however the connection doesn't surprise me. Newton's "lumpen proletariat" never had a true ideological base. Apostle12 (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. Herman Blake wrote all of Newton's book Revolutionary Suicide, most of the essays Newton published in To Die for the People, and many of the articles Newton published in the Panther newspaper. Source: Garrow, David J., Picking Up the Books: The New Historiography of the Black Panther Party, Reviews in American History, Volume 35, Number 4, December 2007, p. 668.Pokey5945 (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you will add this, not as a conclusion, but something like: "Panther author David J. Garrow claims that J. Herman Blake (identify him) wrote all of Newton's book REVOLUTIONARY SUICIDE.....etc. Since J. Herman Blake's "assistance" is acknowledged, you will need to write this very carefully to expand Garrow's claim that Blake, not Newton, was the true author.

Since many people write books with the assistance of more accomplished writers, you will need to be very specific. Assistance does not invalidate Newton's claim to authorship. If Garrow's statements are clear enough, at that point you can add in the information revealed by Elaine Brown and Kate Coleman. All carefully sourced, with page numbers and accurate context.

I think it is interesting that Newton's "History of Consciousness" PhD program may have been designed as a joke to prove the irrelevance of such programs, as Pearson describes it. Apostle12 (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake himself claims to have written those works. He later served as Newton's dissertation adviser at UCSC. I have found another source which quotes unpublished FBI testimony to the Church Committee in 1975, stating that "a black professor" was ghosting Newton, apparently referring to Blake. The FBI already knew it in '75. WP has a long way to go to catch up.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the above isn't Garrow. Garrow was citing a source from Lazerow and Williams, which was in turn presenting an article by Roz Payne, who was discussing the FBI testimony from Cohendet, where the "ghostwritten by a black professor" statement was made (and yes, published). Payne received an email in 2003 in which Blake claimed to have done some "writing" for Newton, after routinely meeting with him while he was in prison, but it is unclear what the nature of that writing was. Was it merely simple dictation, or functioning as an editor of Newton's words, or was Blake the actual originator of the written thoughts and concepts ascribed to Newton? It isn't clear from these sources, but I suggest you read them, in order to qualify yourself as an informed editor on this article. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only editor here who has actually read the literature. I'd like to see the whole email from Blake to Payne for more context. Remember that Payne has characterized the sources by Coleman and Pearson as following "the gossipy tales of the FBI in the national press with little regard for their actual truth." The forward and intro to "Revolutionary Suicide" might also shed a little light on the reality of who wrote what. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the source you cite, you will see the complete text of the email, which answers your questions. Blake claims that he wrote these works, not that he transcribed them.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the source I "cite", I see only 3 sentences of the email (and I've seen indication that there was more than one email), which leaves me with more questions than answers, including the big one mentioned above: was Blake the actual originator of the written thoughts and concepts ascribed to Newton? Did Blake merely write those works, or was he the author? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are interesting questions, but answering them would be OR and thus not the task of WP editors. Blake claims that he wrote the stuff. That's how WP needs to report it. It's in a reliable source, and either directly or circumstantially supported by numerous other sources. I leave it to you to write these up.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect; it is not the task of Wikipedia editors to, after acknowledging that a sentence raises more questions than it answers, go ahead and insert the uninformative sentence anyway. The task of Wikipedia editors is to create articles that inform the reader, not confuse the reader, and certainly not to mislead the reader. I understand certain editors here are personally motivated to have the article convey as much critical, negative and unflattering content as they can manage to insert -- even if that involves fabrication and misrepresenting sourced information. How about we abide by Wikipedia policy instead, and convey what reliable sources convey, and leave our own personal prejudices at the doorstep? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that "leav(ing) our own personal prejudices at the doorstep" is essential. Why don't you try it? So far I have seen you consistently work to exclude information that might reflect badly on Newton's character.Apostle12 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of venting against straw men on the talk page, why not be constructive and write your own version? The story will be told. You have an opportunity to shape the wording.Pokey5945 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which story would that be? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want it to be? I've put it down in my own words, in several different versions. I've brought in a number of sources. I keep getting reverted. You know that Newton's illiteracy and use of ghostwriters is going to get into the article in one form or another. There are too many sources for the facts to be denied. Why not be constructive and write it in your preferred words instead of reverting mine?Pokey5945 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the information deserves inclusion. However, the versions you have written do not do it justice and are a bit confusing. On the other hand Xenophrenic does seem to be blocking you rather than editing constructively, particularly with regard to Kate Coleman's writings, which are highly respected. I would suggest you give it your best shot here on talk rather than endlessly discussing why you can't. I would do it myself, but you better know the sourcing. Apostle12 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I've put it down in my own words" -- yeah, that's one way to describe it. The reason some of your edits keep getting reverted is because they convey something different than what is conveyed by the sources to which they are cited. I've detailed some of this in the "Ghostwriting" section above. I don't have a problem with conveying that Newton has made use of dictation & transcription, but as to the qualitative "illiteracy" you wish to ascribe to him, that really needs to be properly sourced. You've taken sourced remarks that he "taught himself to read", lacked "formal education", found cursive writing "difficult", or read "with the help of a dictionary" and translated that into "functional illiteracy" -- which is a leap too far. Your assertions become even more problematic when you appear to ignore that those very same sources also describe Newton as "well read", serious about his academic pursuits, "genius", good student, and that his educational shortcomings were not evident, or were well masked.

@Apostle12: I've no doubt that you highly respect Coleman, likely because she says what you want to hear, but I do not see that she is "highly respected" on the subject of Newton and the Black Panthers. To the contrary, she appears to be routinely criticized and dismissed by those who have actually earned high respect in this field. As to your "seem to be blocking you rather than editing constructively" asssertion, that's very much like the assertions one would expect from Coleman, i.e., demonstrably wrong and stated with hopes that no one will challenge it. My edit actually expanded a quote inserted by Pokey, and removed a bit of unsupported synthesis -- you know, "constructive editing" -- and it was my edit that was "blocked" by Pokey. Apparently, if I was insisting on expanding the quote so as to put it in proper context, he would have none of that and removed the quote altogether, because it no longer supported his meme. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How obnoxious of you to imply that you know either Coleman's or my hopes! Or that I respect Coleman "because she says what (I) want to hear!" This is a not-very-subtle personal attack and it is leagues away from assuming good faith! Coleman's work interviewing Eldridge Cleaver, where Cleaver admitted that he led the Panthers on an ambush of the Oakland Police Department the night Bobby Hutton was killed, was widely recognized as groundbreaking. And her investigation of Panther skullduggery and extortion rackets exposed the Panthers so expertly that they effectively disbanded soon after. Only those who don't like what she discovered in her investigative reporting criticize and dismiss Coleman--and they do so without citing evidence that contradicts her well-founded conclusions. Apostle12 (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not feign offense with me, and save your admonishments about personal attacks and good faith, lest we compare them against your words about editors showing signs of being a "Newton apologist", or that editors want Newton viewed as a hero, among the tamer of your attacks. As for your remarks about Coleman: sorry, but I deal only in reliably sourced information. You should, too. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My finding offense in your implications is hardly "feigned." Apostle12 (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, I would add, your history of disruptive editing at White privilege, or your discussion here that should clearly indicate to anyone attempting to adhere to WP:NPOV that you (Apostle12) have strong personal feelings about these subjects. Therefore, because there also seems to be a lack of concrete, significant attempts to counter these biases in your edits (i.e. I have seen nothing to indicate that you follow WP:ENEMY) it seems that your statements and use of sources should be scrutinized closely for violations of WP:SOAP. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My editing at White privilege has not been "disruptive," and your assertions do not make it so. Apostle12 (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FBI agent William Cohendet to the Church Committe in 1975: “[B]ooks were published allegedly written by a black professor with more `literary skill as well as industry than Newton could command” (Payne, 2006, p. 174). J. Herman Blake -- a black professor, and Newton's dissertation adviser at UCSC -- wrote in an email to Payne: “I did write all of Revolutionary Suicide. As well, I wrote many of the articles Huey published in the BPP newspaper, and most of those published in the book ‘To Die for the People’. During Huey's incarceration at San Luis Obispo, I visited him every Friday, and spent the entire day with him.” (Payne, p. 180).Pokey5945 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on how adding allegations like this helps the article. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed similar concerns when I corrected Pokey's misperceptions of that footnote from Payne, up in the 4th comment in this same discussion thread. Perhaps it is Pokey's intent to bolster perceptions of Newton by stressing his close relationships with esteemed professors? Maybe Pokey's intent is to support the unremarkable fact that Newton sometimes made use of dictation/transcription, as noted by Brown ("used tape recorders and transcribers to write his books") and Pearson ("although Newton was well read, his papers were written by others whom he dictated to")? Perhaps Pokey's concern is specific to the creation of the Revolutionary Suicide autobiography, in which case we could also note that transcription on that book was also performed by Kathy Harris, Delois Burbie, and much of the manuscript was typed by Cohee and Hall, with proofreading done by Blake's wife, Bessie, and his three daughters. But that all seems to be content more appropriate for the Wikipedia article on the book itself. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is significant that Newton has achieved a minor reputation as a theorist, when it seems that in reality he was functionally illiterate and relied on ghostwriters. We now have RS naming Newton's ghostwriters for his best-known publications -- one of whom was his dissertation adviser. Why on earth would we want to conceal this information?Pokey5945 (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a Rashomon problem. I have some experience working with adult literacy programs, and my experience is that someone's functional illiteracy in no way precludes them from being able to talk about complicated ideas or consider weighty questions. Calling someone "illiterate" is often taken as a slur, and i think rightly so. I would feel much more comfortable saying "person A was known to have a seventh grade reading level" even in cases where that information is germane, and I see no indication that that is the case here.

I also am not familiar with as much of the literature on Mr. Newton as I'd like, so I cannot say for certain that this allegation is widespread enough to be included. However, my sense based on what i have read is that this is not something that is widely talked about. That could be for many reasons, including but not limited to a wide-ranging collusion among academics to protect Mr. Newton's reputation, falsity of the allegation, a perception that the information is not pertinent, or misinterpretation of indicators like use of transcription services. My suggestion is that unless there is widespread scholarly consensus, we leave it out, and if it is included, it is phrased as above (e.g. reading level or an equivalent) to avoid the false impression that it is being used as a character assassination tactic. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something is "widely talked about" is less important than whether it is true and well-sourced. The information that Newton relied on his dissertation adviser to ghostwrite his most significant works seems highly significant to me. This is not "character assassination," though it may reveal aspects of Newton's character that some wish to conceal. I believe we should include all sourced information in the article and let readers decide for themselves with regard to Newton's character. Apostle12 (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "information that Newton relied on his dissertation advisor to ghostwrite" is unsourced. As is the "functionally illiterate" description. Still waiting for those sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for removing the link:

• It is unclear from the link whether this piece appeared in the newspaper, see WP:NEWSBLOG.
• It contains a number of unsourced allegations, and it reads in many places like an opinion piece rather than serious journalism.
• It only appears in one place, and appears unnecessary to support the statement in question.
• It is a primary rather than a secondary source.

I have removed the link again, please discuss here. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be perfectly clear that this piece did in fact appear in the San Francisco Chronicle. The link, as well as the format, are standard San Francisco Chronicle fare, as any reader of the paper will recognize.

The San Francisco Chronicle is the newspaper of record for the San Francisco Bay Area, and it is used as a reference throughout Wikipedia. This is not a "newsblog."

Kate Coleman has been researching and writing about the Black Panthers for thirty years, and her work is highly respected. Her allegations are backed by the entire body of her work, which includes interviews with Panthers, ex-Panthers and many who participated in the left-wing politics of the era.

Kate Coleman's pieces have also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, New West Magazine, and many other prominent publications. Her 1980 interview with Eldridge Cleaver is considered seminal among Panther scholars.

There is no reason to eliminate a source that reinforces what the article says and further informs readers. I have reinstated it. Apostle12 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SFGate is a large site, which includes newsblogs, such as [4]. I am dismayed by your immediate reinstatement of the link without actually discussing the matter. this is not consistent with WP:BRD, as a passing perusal of the page will indicate. How can we come to an agreement here? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SFGate site may be large, and it may include blogs, however there is no indication whatever that Coleman's published piece is a "blog." We probably will never agree about Kate Coleman - you seem to want to discredit her at every turn, especially when it comes to allegations of Newton's ghostwriters. The wholesale elimination of her as a source is going one step further, however; you seem to want Coleman eliminated as a source, even if many other sources (Pearson, Austin, Brown, Seale), either wholly or partly, support what she writes. I find this unreasonable, and I believe her SF Chronicle piece is both relevant and an appropriate source. Apostle12 (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having an opinion piece "published" in a newspaper does not negate the fact that it is an opinion piece. She shopped that piece out to multiple outlets, and some decided to print it (see basically the same opinion piece at FrontPageMag.com, for example). That doesn't make the opinion true or accurate, nor does it mean that the piece has been fact-checked or even endorsed. Also, the prominence of the publisher is no indication of the prominence of the opinion piece writer, as made evident by other pieces published in that same section from mere shopkeepers and other local citizenry.

My problem isn't with if/where the opinion was published, but that the citation is being used to support an assertion of fact, against Wikipedia policy. There is still no indication that Coleman's opinion carries any academic weight, other than the repeated assertion here by an editor that apparently highly respects her.

The sentence in our article states: Despite some involvement in social programs, the Black Panthers in Oakland, California, as well as other U.S. cities, never transcended their reputation for violence and criminality. It is curious that Coleman's piece is cited to support that. If I understand Coleman's opinion correctly, she is saying exactly the opposite. Coleman whines that the Panthers have been mythologized, that they are viewed as "American as apple pie", and that they have basically transcended their "reputation for violence and criminality" because scholars gloss over or refuse to study that aspect. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article's appearance in FrontPage is irrelevant--they republish whatever they want, sometimes without asking permission. They've done it to me. The Coleman piece in question was also published in the LA Times as well as the SF Chronicle. I have seen no evidence that Coleman's research on the BPP is unreliable. Coleman is an established authority on the BPP, and has been extensively cited in the scholarly literature. In the first discussion on Coleman above, reverters asked for independent confirmation. Now we have independent confirmation of the ghostwriting from Herman Blake--one of Newton's ghostwriters. And yet it's still not enough. It seems like the evidentiary bar is being raised, simply to keep this significant information out of the article.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC) I would also note--from my own personal persepctive--that Coleman is an extremely courageous person, having put her own life at risk in publishing the most historically important expose on the Oakland Panthers in 1978.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life at risk? I chuckled. :) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably wasn't that funny to the reporter whose car was firebombed.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firebombed by her ex-postman mail carrier. I don't see how that relates. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of the author is not what I am taking issue with. It is the use of a primary source to support a statement that already has two other supporting references, and that this source both reads like an opinion piece, and appears nowhere else in the article. Your personal feelings about the author are also not at issue, and I am puzzled by why both you and Apostle12 raise them. I was not a part of the previous discussion re: Coleman, so please do not assert or imply that I had something to do with that. this reference was listed as a bare link, and seemed out of place. when I perused it, in my view it did not significantly add to the article.

Both your and Apostle12's behavior suggest that you may want to review WP:OWN and WP:SOURCE. It is genuinely puzzling to me why you would make this much effort to defend the inclusion of source which, at best, is borderline non-RS according to WP:SOURCE (and distinct from the reliability of the author -- some journalists write opinion pieces, and those are opinion, not journalism) for the reasons pointed out above (at minimum). I would very much appreciate it if you could explain this in less personal terms, so that I and other authors can understand your reasoning, address the underlying concerns, and we can move past this.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN - that's rich coming from you! You are the one who keeps reverting our edits, not the other way around! Apostle12 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with your removal of the Coleman cite in that particular place, but her credibility as a source is a significant debate that affects other parts of the article where she is an important source.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FrontPage article isn't a reprint (and it also isn't identical). She spammed her opinion pieces to numerous outlets -- always with the appended byline that her new unrelated book was hitting the shelves, which is typical for writers trying to generate buzz and name recognition prior to a book release. As for you seeing "no evidence that Coleman's research" is unreliable, I'd direct your attention to the section above under the "Kate Coleman" header, and I could cite numerous criticisms of her writing and her credibility. She is certainly not "an established authority" on the BPP, and I request that you specifically quote here the reliably-sourced proofs of that assertion. As for your "independent confirmation of the ghostwriting from Herman Blake", I would like to see the reliably-sourced proof of that as well. So far I've seen only Blake's assertion that he has done writing for Newton while meeting with him every Friday for full-day sessions through his 22-month incarceration. Wikipedia's "evidentiary bar" hasn't changed at all, that I am aware of. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about Coleman's reliability wrt her BPP pubs, not Judi Bari. Also note that the anti-Coleman website is maintained by Judi Bari's ex, who many people--including Coleman--believe is the bomber. In the BPP literature, Coleman is often cited, and I don't know of anyone who's caught her in any signifcant errors, or any errors at all. You also grossly misrepresent Blake--he said in plain language that he wrote the works in question. This corroborates Coleman's assertions about Newton being ghostwritten. Blake said nothing about his ghostwriting being limited to the time period of Newton's incarceration--you've invented that. Joe Street's historiography in the Journal of American Studies echoes my own plain language interpretation of Blake's claim: "Yet with J. Herman Blake’s recent claim that he, and not Newton, wrote many of the articles that appeared in this collection, it will surely receive more rigorous analysis. Blake’s assertion potentially casts a great shadow over Newton’s contribution to African American intellectual history." This is how scholars view Blake's ghostwriting claim. This is why the ghostwriting issue is signifcant, and why it should be in this WP article.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. We're talking about Coleman's reliability as a source. As for Judi Bari, I don't know who that is. Should I care? Sounds like a distraction.

• You also grossly misrepresent Blake--he said in plain language that he wrote the works

Yes, he did say that -- something I have not disputed. So where, exactly, did I supposedly "misrepresent Blake"?

• Blake said nothing about his ghostwriting...

Correction: Blake said nothing about "Ghostwriting", period. We're talking about "writing", so let's get back to that, please. "Ghostwriting" is a term you (and perhaps writers like Coleman) have attempted to apply, and is not from a reliable source.

• Joe Street's historiography in the Journal of American Studies echoes my own plain language interpretation of Blake's claim

Have you actually read "Blake's claim"? You know, the one in which Blake goes into detail about the "writing" he did, and how Newton wasn't allowed any writing or reading materials while incarcerated (unless it specifically related to the defense of his appeal case), so Blake had to find a quiet spot after each day's meeting with Newton to transcribe and record each day's discussion from his notes? It doesn't appear so. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Coleman's publications carrying "academic weight"--they are cited as sources in:

• Still Lifting, Still Climbing: African American Women's Contemporary Activism by Kimberly Springer
• Joe Street's BPP historiography in the Journal of American Studies.
• Garrow's historiography in Reviews in American History.
• Black Against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party, by Joshua Bloom, Waldo E. Martin, Jr., Waldo Martin
• I believe Coleman is also cited in Pearson.

If she's reliable enough to be cited repeatedly by professional scholars, she's reliable enough to be in WP.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This comment actually gets to the crux of one of my arguments -- this piece in particular (the one i removed) is a primary source. Using primary sources is a hallmark of original research, which is not part of WP's mission. From WP:SOURCE:

Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.

You mention that Coleman is cited in a number of other sources. However, the issue here is whether this particular source is appropriate for the article, not the tenor of her scholarship generally, which I have not commented about.

If indeed this article is cited in these other places you mention, it seems more appropriate to cite those works.

When I get a minute I will try and find the time to post about this dispute on the reliable sources noticeboard, unless someone else beats me to it. I may be wrong, but I think it's now clear that we need outside guidance.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you're arguing that Coleman's newspaper articles are primary sources. What is your basis for this determination? I don't see anything in the WP policy links you gave that defines newspapers as verboten primary sources. Perhaps I missed it?Pokey5945 (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A closer reading suggests that this might also be an issue of WP:V, perhaps moreso than WP:PSTS. This particular article makes quite a number of claims, some referenced, some not. It is also written with a clearly opinionated slant; this itself would not be a disqualification, necessarily, but it does raise the bar for its inclusion as evidence somewhat, given that it is making a clear attempt to push a POV, and we should not allow that POV to creep into our article. the fact that I was not able to determine either whether it was published in the newspaper or blog, or if the former, in which section, further confounds our ability to identify it as a either reliable, or as a primary or secondary source.

Where that leaves us is here: it is in part a primary source or opinion piece, which would argue against its inclusion, and it may also be an insufficiently-referenced secondary source, which would also argue against its inclusion.

I think that the other sources are adequate. it pushes a POV hard enough that i think including it would suggest additional problems with WP:NPOV compliance. the issues with this article's verifiability are serious enough to me to merit its exclusion. I will probably be able to post something at WP:RSN later this evening. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

posted -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to point out that Historiography is not the same as History. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seemed a bit snippy, and I apologize if offense was taken. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A classic non-apology. A real one would read: "I apologize for being offensive." Apostle12 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help matters if I verified the location of the piece in the SF Chron, including page number and section? I should be able to do so fairly easily. My concern, as I've noted above, is not whether the opinion piece was printed, but whether it should be used to support an assertion of fact. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly do not know. Whether it would help depends on which section it appeared in -- the front page or the opinion sections would be clear indicators of its reliability as a source either pro or con, but if it appeared in, for example, the lifestyle section that might raise more questions than it answers. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided evidence establishing that Coleman is considered by academics to be an authority on the BPP. If we quote her POV and present it as such, then it doesn't matter what part of the paper she was published in. WRT the ghostwriting allegation, Coleman presented that as an established fact, not an opinion. So again for the ghostwriting cite, it doesn't matter where in the paper the article was published.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Argument from authority and the essay WP:CITEKILL. My inclination is to wait until we have some input from the folks at WP:RSN. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm familiar with basic logic. WP editors report arguments; they don't make them. Authority is the basis of reliable sourcing. Coleman is considered an authority by numerous academics.Pokey5945 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating "Coleman is considered an authority" or "Coleman is highly respected" doesn't make it so. You also appear to be confusing "citing Coleman" with "mentioning Coleman", and you also appear to confuse "citing Coleman" with "citing a piece by Coleman". You have not "provided evidence establishing that Coleman is considered an authority". Yes, Coleman is mentioned in Pearson's book, he writes about her, and the piece she published with Avery, and Newton's refutation of it. Coleman is also mentioned in the book you listed above by Bloom, Martin & Martin, where they say,

"Accusations abound about Newton's alleged criminal activities during this period. Few people agree on the specifics, and few of the accusations have been verified: Newton eventually defeated every one of the major criminal charges in court. Some of the most widely touted accusations come from right-wing activists such as David Horowits and Kate Coleman, who seek to vilify the Black Panther Party." "One school of commentators simply took up Hoover's program of vilification, portraying the Party as criminals and obscuring and minimizing its politics. In an influential article in 1978, Kate Coleman and Paul Avery made a series of allegations about personal misdeeds and criminal actions by Panthers in the 1970s, after the Party had lost influence as a national and international political organization..." "David Horowitz wrote a series of essays in 1994 building on these allegations, treating them as the totality of what was important or interesting about the Panthers and describing the Black Panthers as "an organized street gang." Hugh Pearson, in consultation with Horowitz, then wrote The Shadow of the Panther, a full-length book version of the story Horowitz had developed, telling the history of the Black Panther Party through the alleged crimes and personal misdeeds of Huey Newton.

That's not citing Coleman as a respected source, that criticizing her; and her writing is described as "allegations" and unverified, and just an extension of the FBI's vilification programs. Or look at that other book you listed by Kimberley Springer (who refers to Pearson's book as "not unproblematic"), where Coleman's 1978 piece is mentioned (see footnote 8), do you see how Springer takes a supposedly factual statement by Coleman about what Seale said, and adds "allegedly" to it? That's not "respect", that's suspicion that Coleman isn't a reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be unfamiliar with how academic scholarship works. There are many other academic citations of Coleman that I could add to that list. Yes, a few of them are skeptical of certain aspects of what she reports, but most are not. That's how academics work. If they didn't take her seriously and think she was a significant source, they wouldn't cite her. WP has the same responsibility to cite the major sources. If we rule out citing every source that anyone had ever disagreed with, we would rarely be able to cite the major sources, and would be stuck citing only the minor sources--in pretty much every article in WP.

The main point:

• Coleman is cited as a source in the two major academic historiographies on the BPP.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be unfamiliar with the difference between citing a source to support the assertion of fact, and mentioning a source in a footnote to indicate where the subject of discussion is derived. As I noted above, you confuse the two. Yes, Coleman is "cited" in historiographies, but then so is Discover the Networks, Front Page Magazine and even the BPP's own newspaper -- but that is not an indication that such are sources of verified, factual information. I am happy to hear that you can add to the list of Coleman citations, and I look forward to it, because the list you've provided so far does nothing to establish her as a credible source of information. It thus far works to the opposite effect.

Please note that Historiography is not History, and as such, the Street and Garrow articles focus more on the writers and publications on the BPP topic, rather than the BPP itself. The mention of names and works in these pieces is usually to indicate their existence in the field, and is not a statement on their reliability. (I did find it interesting that Street notes that David Horowitz provided the "research material" to Coleman for her 1978 piece, and Street notes, "Horowitz himself concluded that the BPP was no more than a gang of hoodlums and hustlers. Less an analysis of the party than a character assassination of Newton, his account of the BPP’s nefarious underbelly helped to lay further foundations for Pearson’s work. It paints a picture of a Pearson-Horowitz-Coleman perpetual circle-jerk, with each giving nods to the other two.) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being involved in "a perpetual circle-jerk," to quote your crude language, Horowitz, Coleman and Pearson were among those who bothered to look beyond the rhetoric and examine the actual activities and methodologies of Newton and the Black Panther Party. Those of us who lived in the East Bay Area (I lived in Oakland and Berkeley), and who witnessed those years and Panther dysfunction up close, can attest to the accuracy of their observations. But I do not stand alone; thousands have joined in corroborating their observations. Apostle12 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloom critique is simply wrong. Pretty much all of the criminal allegations that Coleman and Avery made in their 1978 article have been corroborated by participants and eyewitness--Brown and Forbes in particular.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Most of the allegations remain unsupported, and the exceptions that were thinly supported were also challenged or refuted by other eyewitnesses. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to put it so bluntly, but you don't have a clue, and I am having difficulty taking you seriously. You obviously haven't even read Forbes. It seems that no matter how much evidence gets piled up, it still won't satisfy you. You seem motivated to conceal the crime and violence and corruption as much as possible. But it's not possible to tell Newton's story in a meaningful way without dealing openly with his dysfunction, and the corresponding dysfunction in the BPP that led to its demise. Those of us who are familiar with the BPP literature -- and who have published in it -- know all about this stuff and much more. You can see it throughout the literature. Only the true believers attempt to deny it. I'm clearly wasting my time in trying to have a reasonable discussion with a true believer, and I may well decide not to contribute any more work to this article. The dynamic here seems to reflect a structural weakness of WP -- people who are expert on a topic are driven out by teenagers without a clue but with all the time in the world. Good luck with your little project--I'm going back to publishing with professionals.20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokey5945 (talk • contribs)

"you don't have a clue"? "the true believers"? "teenagers without a clue"? Yes, very "professional" indeed. As for your comments about my "motivations" (seriously?) regarding violence, crime, corruption, etc.: are you changing the subject now? My concerns and comments have been about sources (see above, and the header of this section may also give you a clue). Thank you, however, for providing an excellent example of the eternal struggle between "Those of us who ... know all about this stuff and much more" versus Wikipedia editors who adhere to policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave this article to those who willfully choose to misrepresent the facts!

Having exhausted your time resources here on Talk, I hope you will continue to edit constructively, writing carefully and providing bulletproof sourcing. Apostle12 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to cut down a substantial amount of the black panther party discussion and direct viewers to the Black Panther Party article, which is much more in depth. I will also attempt to roll the existing BPP content into the article there, and refocus this article on Mr. Newton himself (though retaining a small amount of BPP content). -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that I had lately been looking more at the talk page discussion moreso than the article, and thought that moving more of the discussion of the BPP to that forum would help reduce conflicts here. The discussion of the BPP in the article seems to be at a reasonable level, given Mr. Newton's involvement. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newton wouldn't be at all notable if not for his role in the BPP.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i hadnt thought of the blockquote as emphasis. the WP:MOS guideline for blockquoting as "more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length" and the Pearson quote is 41 words. Either way is fine with me. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is the only blockquoted text on the page, it rather stands out, just as if it was typed in an off-color text, larger font, or had a frame around it. WP:UNDUE reminds us: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements...", and I feel this is no different. It's not a major issue, of course, but the use of "blockquote" for just that particular quote from a writer seems a little odd. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues:

1. I could not find any other sources for either of the claims taken from the Coleman Salon piece ([5]) made in the paragraph inserted in the "Death" section
2. The issue of Newton's love life, if it can be corroborated, should probably not go in the "Death" section.\

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that in the case of the romantic interest alluded to in the Coleman/Salon piece, WP:REDFLAG probably applies. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Salon piece contains a great deal of information about Newton, some of it well-corroborated in previously published works and some of it new. As usual you have used a meat cleaver to cut out any information that seems even mildly critical of Newton, not that any criticism was intended when Coleman quoted from Newton's recently released handwritten letters to Schneider to support her claim that Newton and Schneider became lovers. Schneider's financial support of Newton is very well-known, and it has been reported by others, yet even that fact has been eliminated from this article. Perhaps Coleman's piece divulging the romantic nature of his and Schneider's friendship at least partially explains why Newton received Schneider's unwavering support, with Schneider paying even for Newton's funeral. All eliminated...on what grounds I might ask? Salon is hardly considered an unreliable source, nor is Coleman's piece sensationally written.

Even less is the paragraph you eliminated in any way sensationalistic or incorrect. It does not spotlight Newton's love life; its appearance under "Death" is because it at least partially explains why Schneider was inclined to foot the bill for Huey's many legal battles and even for his funeral. I have reinstated the paragraph. Apostle12 (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

have you looked at WP:REDFLAG? The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is used there, and i think a romantic relationship, previously unwritten about between these two individuals would qualify as an extraordinary claim for purposes of WP. I would certainly think it needed to be included if there were other authors writing similar things about the letters, but I was unable to even corroborate the existence of said letters through other sources. I also could not find any other suggestions that Schneider contributed money for Newton's funeral. Perhaps you have another source for this claim as well?

As for salon's credibility, I don't have a good sense that they have the editorial or fact-checking acumen of, say, the NYT. Given the previous editorial concerns about Coleman (which I share) I would simply point out that WP:RS states "Any of the three can affect reliability." referring to the piece itself, the creator, and the publisher. Since there have been concerns from both me and others about some of Coleman's pieces even in sources seen as more reliable (e.g. the SF Chronicle) than Salon, I hardly think that the simple fact that Salon published it would be proof of reliability.

If you can find other corroborating sources as to the existence and content of these letters, I would be eager to see them. As stated, I could not find them. Your seeming eagerness to include them based on the assertions of one writer is also noted without comment. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Eagerness?" I have held off for months including the new information from Coleman's recent piece. Apostle12 (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why now then? no new publications have emerged which lend credence to or corroborate the claims in the interim. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why now? Because the new information, revealed since Bert Schneider's death, is highly relevant to the topic of this article. In a recent edit note you wrote "discuss on talk page rather than simply reverting please." YOU are the one who has instigated a wholesale revert of sourced information, not me! I note this is a habit of yours, on this and other articles. And no amount of reason ever persuades you 1./ a source is good enough or 2./ the emphasis is not undue, if you don't want the information included in an article. Much of the information in the paragraph you eliminated, by the way, has existed in the article for months. You asked me "Why now?" so I will ask you the same question. "Why now do you seek to eliminate anything and everything Kate Coleman writes about in the Salon piece?" "Why does it seem such an exceptional claim that Schneider bought Newton a house and a car and paid more than $1 million in his legal fees (delaying, or preventing, Newton's being held accountable for his crimes, I might add) when other sources say the same thing? Why do you eliminate the highly probable claim (not "exceptional" at all) that Schneider paid for Newton's funeral? All this is nonsense, just as your blinding stubborness on other articles (e.g. "White privilege") has been nonsense. Your editing has become disruptive sir! Apostle12 (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted at WP:DRN about this. Please join me in the discussion there. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation, by itself, that person X pays for person Y's funeral is a perfectly reasonable assertion to make, and if that were the only unsourced allegation made in the piece I would probably have left it there, though I frankly do not see why it needs to be in an encyclopedia article. I fail to see what the relevance of that information, even if true, is for a general audience.

That the same piece that contains this allegation also contains accusations of romantic involvement that have not previously been written about by other authors, and furthermore that this relationship is clearly discernible from some cache of personal letters noone but the author appears to have access too, an author that has previously been called out by other scholars in the field for having a "Panther bashing" agenda (see previous threads on Coleman's credibility), well, it just doesn't seem like that is the sort of thing you immediately put into an encyclopedia to me without a several other authors corroborating the claim. After the letters are verified and written about by other scholars and the assertions prove to be true (should they be in fact true, or rather verified by other credible authors), then I will not quarrel with their inclusion in the article, in an appropriate section. But the fact that Coleman alone makes these exceptional claims also calls into doubt her other claims in the piece, especially since she seems to be the only person publicly saying that Schneider "paid for" (in whole or part?) Newton's funeral.

This is why i removed the assertion about Schneider paying for Newton's funeral.

Contrary to your assertions at the WP:DRN page, I have already suggested (perhaps too obliquely) what I feel is usually the primary remedy for these kinds of issues of reliability-of-claims and sourcing in such cases: provide more and better sources for the claims. I was unable to find any, and I thought you might have better luck.

Regardless of what you believe to be the truth here, WP is not set up to promote truth, but verifiability. Poorly-sourced content simply should not be included here. I am truly sorry that my standards for verifiability cause you displeasure. That is not my intent. My intent is to help produce an encyclopedia. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should review your prejudices. Kate Coleman does not make "accusations of romantic involvement;" she describes a romantic relationship that apparently meant a great deal to both men. In fact, if you have read much of Newton's history, you already know that his other romantic relationships were often lacking in depth, and with many people he was quite harsh. Despite their disagreements, which Coleman describes, there was little harshness in the Newton/Schneider relationship.

Since the romantic attachment Coleman describes can hardly be counted as "Panther bashing," that argument does not apply in this case. But even those who have objected to what they perceive as Panther bashing have never asserted that Coleman's investigatory pieces are inaccurate, much less do they assert any hint of fabrication. Given that track record, established over a thirty-five year period, Coleman's credibility is quite high. Both Coleman, and Salon, track as reliable sources. I am very aware of the verifiability v. truth issue, and I believe this sourcing passes the test. You cannot pretend that "your standards" constitute the same thing as Wikipedia's standards, especially since you seem determined to be the opposite of a "Panther basher," which is to say a "Panther apologist."

Huey Newton was seldom held accountable for what nearly everyone, even close Panther associates like Bobby Seale and Elaine Brown, count as his crimes. This did not happen by accident, or merely because Newton possessed the ability to charm juries. It happened because he had benefactors like Bert Schneider who were willing to pay millions for the best possible legal defenses. The embezzlement charges that were brought against Huey in 1982 are a good example; various legal maneuvers (all paid for by Schneider) delayed even the final slap-on-the-hand plea bargain for a full seven years! Other examples of Schneider's largesse abound, including his paying for Huey's funeral. This information is highly relevant to the story of Huey Newton, and if you "fail to see what the relevance of that information, even if true, is for a general audience," you must be turning a blind eye. Apostle12 (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I include my comments from WP:DRN for easy review by other editors:

For about two months now the WP "Huey Newton" article has contained the following entry under the "Death" section:

Hollywood producer Bert Schneider, a Newton benefactor who through the years had provided him with cars, homes, and millions of dollars in attorney fees, paid for Newton's funeral.

This entry was sourced with an article authored by highly-respected journalist Kate Coleman titled: "True Hollywood Story: The Producer and the Black Panther," which appeared in the June 9, 2012 edition of Salon magazine. In this case "The Producer" referred to Bert Schneider, who had recently died, providing access for the first time to handwritten letters he received from Huey Newton during the 1980s.

Kate Coleman (editor UsetheCommandLine mistakenly refers to her as "Karen Coleman") was a natural to gain access to the letters Newton wrote to Schneider, because she has been writing about Newton, the Black Panthers, and the New Left for more than thirty-five years. Her article "The Party's Over: How Huey Newton Created a Street Gang in the Center of the Black Panther Party" (New Times Magazine, 1978) was a carefully researched, seminal piece that pulled back the curtain on Newton's violent criminality and his criminalization of the Black Panther Party. A subsequent article, "Souled Out: Eldridge Cleaver Admits He Ambushed Those Cops" appeared in a 1980 edition of New West Magazine and finally put the lie to Cleaver's and Newton's 1967 claim that the Oakland police had ambushed Cleaver, resulting in Bobby Hutton's death and martydom. Coleman has written at regular intervals about Huey Newton and the Black Panthers, and her pieces have been published in the Bay Area's newspaper of record, The San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times and many other national newspapers. Coleman's research on Huey Newton and the Black Panther Party has always been impeccable; there is no reason to distrust her.

After carefully reading Coleman's latest "True Hollywood Story" article (see above), I augmented the "Death" section entry to read:

Hollywood producer Bert Schneider, a benefactor of leftist causes and friend of Newton, through the years provided him with money for a car, a down payment for a home, and more than $1 million in attorney's fees. Journalist Kate Coleman reports that handwritten letters between Newton and Schneider, revealed after Schneider's 2011 death, demonstrate that by at least the 1980s the two had became lovers...."Newton glowingly expresses his 'joy and sensual excitement' after spending his first night following his release from prison with Schneider. The producer had bailed him out, driven him in a white stretch limo by the prison so he could wave to his fellow prisoners, then taken him off to spend the night together 'on top of the (San Francisco) Hyatt.'" In the end, Schneider paid for Newton's funeral.

I believe the information I added is important for WP readers to know, since the fact that Newton and Schneider's well-known camaraderie also became a love affair may go far in explaining Schneider's unrelenting financial and moral support. We know from many other sources that Schneider paid large sums to cover the rent on Newton's penthouse, that he helped Newton escape to Cuba, that he paid untold sums to lawyers (one case alone cost over $1 million), and that Schneider's name was on the mortgage for Newton's residence in the Oakland hills.

During the past 12-13 hours, editor UsetheCommandLine has repeatedly reverted this entire paragraph, not just the new information I added but the longstanding, non-controversial information re: Schneider's extensive financial support and his footing the bill for Newton's funeral. When I objected that he was engaging in disruptive "meat cleaver" editing, he announced that Kate Coleman is an unreliable source, which can hardly be the case--Coleman's credibility regarding Newton, Cleaver and the Black Panthers has never been contested, and it would be difficult for any Newton, Cleaver or Black Panther scholar to ignore her work. In addition, her articles are extensively cited in many WP articles.

I wish to reinstate the paragraph, including the new information about Schneider's and Newton's personal relationship. Editor UsetheCommandLine has now reverted me THREE TIMES (!), and he has been unwilling to suggest any compromise whatever (a shorter quote, for example). This mirrors previous experience with his editing, on this article and others, which has driven at least a few editors away; he pretends to "discuss" the facts on Talk but demonstrates complete intransigence when it comes to his unsupported claims of unreliable sourcing and/or undue emphasis. I have never seen him suggest, or accept, a compromise.Apostle12 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But even those who have objected to what they perceive as Panther bashing have never asserted that Coleman's investigatory pieces are inaccurate, much less do they assert any hint of fabrication. Really?

Coleman follows "the gossipy tales of the FBI in the national press with little regard for their actual truth." --Payne

"Accusations abound about Newton's alleged criminal activities during this period. Few people agree on the specifics, and few of the accusations have been verified ... Some of the most widely touted accusations come from right-wing activists such as David Horowits and Kate Coleman, who seek to vilify the Black Panther Party." --Bloom, Martin and Martin

I think some would disagree. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insinuations all; I note not a single example of inaccuracy or fabrication. We can dismiss Bloom out of hand for his ad hominem attack on Coleman as a "right-wing activist." Coleman is far-left and proud of it; she and Horowitz agree on very little! Apostle12 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, you can cite them when they support your arguments, and then "dismiss" them when they conflict with your agenda. Fun and games. As for "far-left" and "far-right", they are interchangeable as convenience dictates; just ask her partner Horowitz. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, my only "agenda" is creating a comprehensive article that accurately presents the various perspectives. You must be delirious to imagine that "far-left" and "far-right" are interchangeable, though I would agree that both extremes breed tyrants.

"...you can cite them when they support your arguments, and then 'dismiss' them when they conflict with your agenda" What in the world are you alluding to? The path you have headed down seems nonsensical. Horowitz did disavow his early leftism; to the best of my knowledge he hasn't reversed himself. Apostle12 (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~ We may have gone past this, but Fredricka Newton states that Newton's funeral was paid for by lots of small donations from the local community (Hilliard and Zimmerman, Huey p. 282). Not that this means Schneider didn't contribute something! Jswba (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the edit summary, Pearson is the single most frequent reference in this article, and I don't see why there is such a reliance on his claims specifically. It almost seems like there is a concerted effort to use the more inflammatory and un-corroborated material from Pearson, rather than rely on other sources. I also removed the booknotes interview, since the only reason Pearson's interview is notable here is because of the over-reliance on his one book as source material for this article. I would have added it to Pearson's own WP page, but he does not have one. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 2005, Hugh Pearson passed away at the unexpectedly young age of 47. He does deserve a WP page; here is some biographical info:

http://hnn.us/node/15154

Pearson was a respected journalist with the Wall Street Journal, and his book "Shadow of the Panther" has never been challenged for factual inaccuracy. In fact much of what he writes has been corroborated by other Panther authors, e.g. Elaine Brown in her autobiographical Taste of Power. Pearson's book is quoted in this article because it remains one of the most comprehensive biographical treatments of Huey Newton. Apostle12 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like hand-waving to me, and "one of" is the key phrase here. My concern is not that it is included, but that there is relatively too much credence given to it. Four years ago there were half as many references in total, and only one reference to the book, which was published nearly 20 years ago. Now there are at least five. It also seems suspicious that many of the assertions that can be construed as reflecting negatively upon Newton's actions come from Pearson. Given that Jeffries' book is at least newer, and Jeffries also has a much greater number of academic publications on the era and race issues at the time, if there were a source I would think to lend more credence to (and even at the risk of being accused of recentism it would be his book, though it is only cited once. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So do it, edit away using Jeffries, or whomever, as sources; no one is stopping you. I certainly won't revert the new information you add the way you continually revert me on the grounds of "reliable sourcing" or "undue emphasis!" Quite tired of this nonsense! Apostle12 (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a bit concerned about using Jeffries's book as the go-to source for Newton's life. It's an acceptable -- if a bit uncritical -- intellectual biography of Newton (see that Street article mentioned elsewhere on this page, which mentions its shortcomings) but it's a little basic on the detail of Newton's life. OK, so Pearson is critical and Jeffries friendly. Why not use them both and try to tease out the similarities or differences? Jswba (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that is what good WP editing is all about--present the whole story so readers can decide for themselves. Apostle12 (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to remind everyone that there is an ongoing DRN discussion about Coleman's Salon piece and its reliability as a source. Talk there has stalled a bit over the last few days, but there are open questions that I think it important to address, because their answers will likely have implications for how we treat Coleman's other pieces. While the initial dispute is listed as being between Apostle12 and myself, because discussion has been opened by the WP:DRN volunteers I think weighing in by anyone active on this article would be useful. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No time to do the research right now. Maybe in a few days. Apostle12 (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing the DR/N as resolved. The consensus of editors is that the material should not be inlcuded and Apostle12 was unable to demonstarte that the material was neither fringe or minority view. Salon is a partisan, political publication that, can at times, cover subjects in a less than neutral manner. There does not appear to be any other sources with similar claims. Per BLP policy for figures recently dead, the information should not be included.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the DR/N is premature, since I have not had time to respond. Responding to questions takes more time than simply formulating them, since I must review lengthy books, check their indexes, and so on. Some books I own, others I do not. The claims regarding Schneider and his involvement in providing financial support for Newton are corroborated by many other sources (Elaine Brown, Hugh Pearson, Curtis Austin), and I intend to catalog them. The only new material in the Salon piece relates to Coleman's review of the handwritten letters from Newton that reveal a romantic connection between him and Schneider. For editor UsetheCommandLine to edit out everything that Coleman refers to in her article is meat-cleaver editing.

All publications at times cover subjects in a less than neutral manner (the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle....); Salon should not be singled out in this manner, and Coleman's work has appeared in many other publications that are generally considered reliable sources (the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, among many others). Not every source needs to be "neutral" (certainly pro-Panther authors like Curtis Austin cannot be considered "neutral," yet I would never object to his work being cited in WP articles). Our job is to air various perspectives from reliable sources so the article as a whole presents a neutral point of view and readers can arrive at their own conclusions. Apostle12 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple sources that support a claim, I wouldn't think that using one that also makes unverified, unsupported claims would be acceptable. I will have to review the policies to figure out which one this exactly runs afould of, but I feel fairly confident that this is frowned upon if not explicitly prohibited.

If you're just trying to document that Newton received money from Schneider over the years, then I would it would be less contentious if you used better sources for that. What sparked this whole discussion, if you recall, was your inclusion of the thus-far unsubstantiated allegations of a romantic relationship between them.

I have mentioned to Amadscientist on their talk page that you wish to reopen the dispute. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle 12, you had 7 days to formulate your responses. That is the basic amount of time estblished for a DR/N. If there was still discussion we would not have closed but you stopped responding and left no mention as to when you would return. If you don't have time at the moment to address a DR/N filing in a timely manner please be aware that things may move on without you. This is an informal board and but we have a set timeline and procedure. If you want to continue discussing the issue here on the talkpage that is fine but be aware that the issue raised here fall under a number of policies that allow the removal of contentious material without discussion. Per BLP:

Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Salon is a "Biased or opinionated source". This does not exclude it from being used but would require that this not be used to state any facts. It must be attributed to the author. Now, I am sorry, but this is fringe information at worst and minority information at best. At any rate, niether are included in Wikipedia BLP articles. The figure may not be a living person, but the policy applies. Do not return the information as that would be edit warring. Any editor that removes such contentious material would be exempted from the 3RR brightline rule as well in removing or reverting the addition of the content. You say you didn't have time to research, but what is it you are looking for? Several editors have made it clear this is not information that is either credible or if so, not common knowledge. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we are not here to make groundbreaking claims. There is a body of information on a subject. If, in that entire body of work, there is little to nothing on the situations being referred to...they are fringe or minority and not included.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You state categorically that Salon is "a biased or opinionated source." On what basis do you make that judgement? Are you asserting that this judgement represents WP policy on the matter? Or is it just your opinion. Please inform. Apostle12 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During the next few months, I intend to create a new section in this article that has to do with the support, moral and financial, that Newton received from various Hollywood luminaries, producer Bert Schneider among them. Certainly other authors refer to this support (Hugh Pearson, Curtis Austin, Elaine Brown, Bobby Seale, and so on), and Kate Coleman's most recent piece becomes a part of this literature. Please keep in mind that Coleman has a history of breaking new ground regarding Huey Newton, Eldridge Cleaver and the Black Panthers in general. In 1978, she was the first author to go public with information regarding criminal activities that were well-known to those living in Berkeley and Oakland, CA ("The Party's Over: How Huey Newton Created a Street Gang at the Center of the Black Panther Party," New Times Magazine)--later works by by Brown, Pearson (who extensively quotes Coleman in his The Shadow of the Panther), and even Panther-booster Curtis Austin confirm Coleman's original take on the subject. Two years later, in 1980, Coleman was the first to interview Eldridge Cleaver and get him to admit that he, Bobby Hutton and others ambushed the Oakland police a few days after the assassination of MLK ("Souled Out: Eldridge Cleaver Admits He Ambushed Those Cops," New West Magazine). Again, subsequent writers have confirmed this fact, especially Austin who is highly critical of Cleaver for not having been a more polished "revolutionary" on the night he attacked the Oakland Police Department, wounding two officers and eventually resulting in the death of Bobby Hutton, who became a pre-eminent Panther martyr. In the currently disputed article, Coleman is the first to write about Newton's and Schneider's romantic relationship, which apparently went far beyond revolutionary comaraderie or simple friendship; given Coleman's excellent track record (none of her writing about the Black Panthers has been discredited), I think it is likely she will also be vindicated re: the true nature of the Newton/Schneider friendship.

Nevertheless, since no other authors have gone on record as having reviewed Newton's handwritten letters to Schneider, I agree that adding information about the their romantic relationship to this WP article may be premature. I cannot, however, agree that Salon.com, or Kate Coleman, have been discredited as sources. Apostle12 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]